October 31, 1995
I have two other affiliations that provide perspective that I will bring to bear on this testimony (although I am not here representing these organizations). First, I am a member of the six-person Technical Advisory Board for Microsoft Research. This position affords me a firsthand view of the interplay between this leading information technology company and the national research enterprise. Second, I am a co-author of the recent National Research Council report Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nation's Information Infrastructure, which you have heard discussed already today by Dr. Ivan Sutherland.
I am pleased that the Subcommittee has decided to hold these hearings at this time. The Act is now about four years old and will expire in one more year. It is an appropriate time to ask what the program has achieved and where we should go from here. As a research society, CRA has closely followed the HPCC Act from its original inception and through its implementation as a program, and I am happy to have the opportunity to comment on both its past and its future.
We think such multiagency planning and program implementation efforts are excellent, and we applaud them.
Universities look to the future. The HPCC program has been a huge success in allowing them to push the frontiers of their research further into the future. It is also important to emphasize that university research carried out under HPCC avoids picking "winners and losers." The purpose of publicly funded research in high-technology fields is to advance basic knowledge and create new opportunities that, in the medium and long term, industry exploits.
Still, significant challenges remain, particularly how to scale parallel systems to higher numbers of processors. Performance at the chip level is improving at 50% per year, meaning that the performance potential far outweighs our knowledge of how to assemble them together into productive systems and manage the flow of work through them.
Over the last four years, however, our vision has broadened substantially in two ways. In the first place, as we have progressed in our understanding of the design of scalable parallel architectures, there is an ever greater need to progress on our fundamental understanding of software and algorithms. Although important challenges remain on the hardware side, a proportionally greater emphasis is needed on software. If, as I suggested earlier, these advanced architectures will likely be the basis of everyday desktop systems of the next decade (and probably well beyond), research undertaken now on software and algorithms for these leading-edge systems will build the foundation for using them efficiently and effectively in the next century.
Although computational science "Grand Challenges" remain exciting and important to explore, we are now looking at a much wider range of "National Challenges," applications that are crucial to the evolution of the nation's information infrastructure.
Now, NSF has nearly completed the process of spinning the Internet off to the private sector. It continues to grow at an explosive rate. Newspapers and magazines carry articles every day about the Internet and the World Wide Web. Commercial firms are fighting each other in the courts over network domain names. Packet-switching communications technology is an important component of the communications service and hardware industry.
NSF, in its concern for the health of U.S. science, needs to ensure that, as the Internet becomes commercialized, the needs of researchers and students for specialized advanced data-communication services are met. A major research responsibility also remains. As fast as researchers find ways to increase the speed of networks, both the growth of traffic and the demands of new applications find ways to consume resources. Thus, there remains an ongoing research agenda in extremely high-speed, extremely large-scale data networking, an agenda that should remain in the next generation Act. Such an agenda would include the following:
We think that the need for strong support of basic research is unchanged. If anything, the focus is even more on the need for such fundamental work.
CRA has on its home page, pointers to a set of case studies describing how basic academic research resulted in significant application areas and economic benefits. I have attached four of them as an appendix to this testimony. We hope to continually add to and update this set of examples, which clearly makes the case for basic computing research.
Interest is growing in educational technology. I note that the Committee on Science held joint hearings with the Committee on Human Resources earlier this month to explore the potential of information technology to transform education. In those hearings, computer scientists such as Seymour Papert drew an ambitious and futuristic vision of how information technology could fundamentally transform learning. Whether Papert's vision is correct or not in the details, there is no question that information systems in the future will have the potential to play an enormous role in education. Nor do we doubt that a lot of fundamental computing research needs to be pursued before we can tap that potential.
Just one month ago, with NSF sponsorship, CRA held a two-day workshop on a basic computing research agenda for education. We called together about 100 computer scientists and education researchers to discuss the long-term needs. A preliminary report will be completed in a month or so, and we expect the final version, which will be published both in paper form and electronically on the Web, to be available early next year. We would be glad to brief the Science Committee and/or staff on these reports and our findings.
Similarly, in the area of digital libraries, we face a significant basic research agenda. For all the excitement that rightfully attended the evolution of the World Wide Web, information on the web has been likened to taking all the books in a large library and dumping them at random on the floor. We really don't know how to organize and search for information in such a massive distributed environment. We don't know how best to display it, how to use it, how to protect intellectual property rights for proprietary data while maintaining access to public information, and how to protect the privacy of users.
We cannot let our investments in the basic research that underpins this field falter. If we fail to invest in research in information technology today, we will lose our leadership tomorrow, and once lost, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to recapture.
We commend your interest. Should the committee decide to draft a new bill, CRA looks forward to working with you in preparing a bill that will be an effective and worthy follow-on to the original.
Copyright © 2004 Computing Research Association. All Rights Reserved. Questions? E-mail: webmaster@cra.org.